garywoot wrote:
[/u]I am an atheist and I don't believe in God or religion.

That being said, I would like to have a debate about God existing and whether or not religion is correct.

My point is there is NO proof of God. All religions are based on faith, which is belief that's not based on proof. I am sure somebody is going to bring up "Well the bible said [blank] is true..." This would be an example of circular reasoning, you cannot prove something by what you are trying to prove says.

Faith and science are two separate domains of inquiry. One is called spiritual and another is called physical. Methods of validation of claims in these domains are different. Theologians rely on authority of holy books while scientists rely on reproducible results of experiments and observations.

I think that attempts to validate/refute spiritual claims by scientific methodology will lead nowhere. I believe that many scientists, including myself, accepted such position. Likewise, I think that attempts to validate/refute scientific claims by methodology based on holy books will lead nowhere. I heard that many theologian accepted that position.

Science and religion can, and should, coexist peacefully. Who benefits from attempts to prove or disprove each other's claims? These fields evolve. Modern scientist no longer say that our planet is the center of the universe, or that interplanetary space is filled with a substance called ether. Likewise, modern theologians no longer believe that our planet was created 6000 years ago.

By the way, I used to be an aggressive atheist, as described in my free ON-LINE autobiography. The link is below the signature.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

I don't debate religion anymore. People either have faith or they don't. And I gave up caring who did and who did not a few years ago.

I just don't understand why so many people that don't believe get so mad at me because I do. I don't push my belief on anyone. But it seems to be very important to some that they stop me from believing.

People who do not believe should not be mad at those who do, and vice versa. We should be educated to respect each other. I know that this ideal is difficult to reach. But what is gained when people try to convert each others?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

On this we can agree. I am not into converting or being converted. Seems to me just a basic respect of others would make life more pleasant for everyone. Sad to say the older I get the less respect I see everywhere I go.

I would rather live my life as if there were a God and die and find out there isn't than to live my life as if there were no God and die and find out there is. for those who do not wish to believe "Good Luck"

jackportd wrote:
Hi,
The question is asked because some people have experiences that cause them to think that God exists, and other people have not had these experiences. The latter group may ask these questions. I don't agree with your last sentence. Some things can exist without being known to some, or even most, people, for quite a while. One example is sub-atomic particles, or black holes. There are probably countless such veiled structures that have yet to be unearthed by equation or observation.

The words "exist" in "God Exists" and in "subatomic particles exist" have different meaning. Subatomic particles, such as electrons or protons, are material objects; God is a spiritual entity. I already share what I think about our two worlds, material and spiritual. A recent draft of my essay is at,